While we've already seen what
tricks cameras can play right before our very eyes, kameraflage is a slightly different flavor of optical
illusion. The patent-pending technology exploits the fact that cameras can see a broader spectrum of colors than our meager eyes, and as the creator puts it, "by rendering content in these invisible colors we are able to create displays that are invisible to the naked eye, yet can be seen when imaged with a digital camera." Currently, it's being applied to garments in able to for
cameraphone addicts to find surprises all over while pointing their sensors at unsuspecting humans, and the tech will even be on display at the upcoming 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH Unravel fashion show in San Diego. Best of all, custom orders will be fielded as early as September, and if we've got any interested VCs in the crowd, give this man a holler.
[Via
c0nn0r]
posted Jul 27th 2007 9:04AM
i thought it was love juice on her.
She's only about 10...you're a sick puppy.
If that's the case then why can you only see it on the picture from the cameraphone and not the other camera??
haha good observation. I wouldn't be surprised if they edited it out to demonstrate the product
Did you perhaps consider a film camera? Or have those become forgotten relics?
film cameras can do the same thing, especially when the IR filter is removed.
@Grant: Film cameras don't have IR filters built-in like digital cameras. The film naturally doesn't respond to IR unless you buy specific film and use a special filter.
i don't get it. no, really.
You're not the only one that doesn't get it. So pretty much all it does is supps up your camera to take prettier looking pictures??
Thats funny...on the website for this company they point out how you can see subtitles during movies using your camera. Film 'pirates' across the country will just bring cameras into the theaters and tell security "I'm just trying to read the hidden subtitles".
a better idea would be to have a giant watermark on the screen so people wont be able to record it in the theater. no need to check for cameras!
"Currently, it's being applied to garments in able to for cameraphone addicts to find surprises all over while pointing their sensors at unsuspecting humans"
1. That's not written in English.
2. This screams 'perv'.
one thing the camera does not see is that she desperately needs to eat a sandwich or something
Crap way from Engadget to advertize again the IFlop
How is the iPhone a flop? No really, I'd like you to quantify that.
Disclaimer: I am NOT an apple fanboy, I own no apple products (well okay, an original mini that sometimes finds use).
OMG! An iPhone! Quick, to the comment box to express my outrage!
... I'm thinking of three words. First one is "get" and the last one is "life".
this is advancement for the camera-shy. make this thing into a spray and spray it all over your face. You'll never be caught stupid on camera again!
But Then everyone would think there is a love stain on her face.
Paris, get a hold of this.
Haahahahaha lol
Wow she is anorexic! Maybe her huge nose makes her look smaller.
My use for this product (if there is even a use for it).
Just wear a nice regular black t-shirt to parties...or so your fellow partiers think until they get home and check out their pictures and BOOM:
"wait...i don't remember seeing that guy wearing the shirt that said C**K MUNCHER in massive letters....how weird....think i'd notice that"
Why would you wear a t-shirt that declares YOU a "C*CK MUNCHER"?
In fact, why would it be censored as well, if camera-less people could not see it?
It does initially say 'cameras' see a wider spectrum then us, not just digital cameras, I thought they were pushing the digicam thing just for the instant results...
I can't wait until the t-shirt equivalents of rude 'no hotlinking' images show up.
in daylight it's a harmless t - under a CCD it's: 'fuck you, photog!'
or for the ladies: 'don't put my tits in your spank-bank, perv'
Man, I can't remember the last time I heard the term "hotlink." Perhaps it was in the same era as "hypercards."
@roc ingersol
Actually thats a pretty decent idea. Like a real life watermark almost. I mean you could slap it all over the mona-lisa and you wouldn't even have to have "no photography" signs up. It'd just have a big watermark all over the finished image :P
Also. If this DOES work with projected film. Just plaster copyright marks all over a movie with this stuff. No more CAM movies ¬_¬
Guys... the lens can pick up ranges in the spectrum that our eyes can't see... the software most likely identifies these portions of the image and converts them into a part of the spectrum we can see... The camera taking a picture of ultraviolet doesn't mean we can suddenly see it... think night vision cameras. The information is already there, they just adapt it to something our eyes can utilize.
Easiest way to make it work with film is to put the IR-reflective watermark on the screen itself. If the projector bulbs don't kick out a broad-enough spectrum of light (if it's not projecting any IR to reflect), they may need to add an IR projector as well. But that wouldn't be a big deal.
But you can get 'good enough' IR-filtering plastic pretty cheap (like, $10-a-sheet-cheap), and the better digital cameras are already building in an IR-filtering layer (IR-sensitivity mucks up quality luminance capture).
Grimnir:
IR light mucks with the visible color values that CCDs calculate. Every single picture taken with a CCD in IR light suffers this way. There's no custom software or custom camera filter needed (as with UV cameras).
Most people just don't notice unless they're photographing a target that specifically reflects or emits IR, which exaggerates the effect.
(E.g. the IR reflective material in this shirt, or an IR emitting remote control, or IR motion detection widget, etc)
So wait, a broader spectrum of colors? What is the magical color we can't see and how can when see it when its on a digital photo?
Infrared light. Point a tv remote at your webcam and you'll see what I mean. We see only a very tiny fraction the the light spectrum.
anyone ever put a camera to a remote? the IR thing at the end lights up through a camera, but u cant see it normally. pretty funky eh?
I was going to post this same exact thing- in fact, I was having fun with the kids one day and showing them the flashes of light that come from the wii controllers.
Pretty old-tech spun with business in mind. Doesn't everyone already know that all this is is the good old remove-IR-filter+increase sensitivity trick?
"in able to for". Must...correct...grammar...
The Leica M8 already has this 'feature'. It turns out that most black garments are actually purple...
This is a really weak idea. Here's a better implementation that would make someone a lot of money. You heard it here first.
Create a line of "club" clothes that have infrared-visible threads in various patterns. Call it "Infrathreads". Flowers, messages ("I want sex", "I'm looking for a Japanese girlfriend"), logos, designs, whatever, designed into the sleeves, backs, fronts, cuffs, everywhere. In normal light, you can't see anything unusual. Sell infrared lights to clubs and DJs. Offer cheap (free) 3D-like glasses to everyone who comes through the door. Better yet, design the thread so that it glows in a visible spectrum when hit with infrared light. Like ultraviolet, but without the weird purple stripclub/1960s stoner vibe.
Neat idea, altho basic physics says it won't work. You can't turn a low energy (ie. long wavelength ie infrared) photon into a higher energy, shorter wavelength visible photon without somehow adding energy, and you can't do that with a passive system. That's why going from UV to violet (loosing energy) works, but IR to, say, red, won't.
On the other hand, you could just issue everyone mil-spec night vision goggles. That'd be a funky looking club! :P
I desperately want a tee shirt that looks plain black when viewed with the naked eye, but says "STOP BLOGGING ME" when snapped with a cameraphone.
This is why it is possible to photograph ghosts and spirits.
I lol in your general direction.
So soon we can expect all of the paparazzi to be pissed as they find that all of their pictures have statements like "Pararazzi are as*holes" in them. Good! I am, like, so tired of them following me around.
I noticed the website didn't seem to have any actual photographs using this technology. They were all "mockups".
this would be wicked with QRcode.
would be nice to use against those pesky speeding cams.
Hmm, maybe we could get copyright notices tattooed in case we ever get photographed naked :P